Re: the GPL is a license not a contract ..

In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [...] >> > if he wants to use invalid contractual terms, he bears the risk of >> > their use. It would violate equity and good faith if he were allowed >> > to sue others merely on the grounds that his license terms were >>

Re: the GPL is a license not a contract ..

Alan Mackenzie wrote: [...] > > http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL3_20040903.pdf "... > > if the GPL is legally ineffective, the user does not have a license and > > is thus violating copyright law. On the face of it, that sounds > > plausible, but it is not. > > It's not only p

Re: the GPL is a license not a contract ..

In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [...] >> >> http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_frankfurt_gpl.pdf >> > Not really convincing example, Alan. >> No, I suppose not. An actual court, with an actual judge, ruling >> explicitly that the GPL is valid - that it

Re: the GPL is a license not a contract ..

"Doug Mentohl" wrote in message news:gp8cfj$h5...@news.datemas.de... amicus_curious wrote: Microsoft's anti-GPL offensive this summer has sparked renewed speculation about whether the GPL is ``enforceable.'' This particular example of ``FUD'' (fear, uncertainty and doubt) is always a little

Re: the GPL is a license not a contract ..

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL3_20040903.pdf > > Is the author of this incorrectly reasoned paper Rjack? No. The author is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hoeren regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.ht

Re: the GPL is a license not a contract ..

Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL3_20040903.pdf Is the author of this incorrectly reasoned paper Rjack? It seems to spout similar errors and natters on about conditions. For example, If you pass software to anybody else or use it in another c

Re: the GPL is a license not a contract ..

Alan Mackenzie wrote: [...] > > >> http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_frankfurt_gpl.pdf > > > Not really convincing example, Alan. > > No, I suppose not. An actual court, with an actual judge, ruling > explicitly that the GPL is valid - that it doesn't violate competition Eh? What are you smokin

Re: the GPL is a license not a contract ..

Alexander Terekhov wrote: The court didn't rule regarding validity of the GPL provisions. ...Affidavits submitted by the parties’ experts raise a factual dispute concerning whether th

Re: the GPL is a license not a contract ..

In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> > Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> > [...] >> >> All sounds rather parochial to me. There are a great deal more than >> >> merely fifty different systems of law under which the

Re: the GPL is a license not a contract ..

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > Notice, however, that you have now yourself presented evidence > of a US judge reading the GPL, understanding its provisions, and > agreeing that they are legitimate - that not distributing the Go to doctor, Hyman. The court didn't rule regarding validity of the GPL pro

Re: the GPL is a license not a contract ..

Alexander Terekhov wrote: How come that judge Saris did NOT consider alleged violation of the GPL to be copyright infringement in MySQL v. Progress case, Hyman? http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf What in that document leads you to believe that? That ruli

Re: the GPL is a license not a contract ..

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > Rjack wrote: > > So what is your point? > > Violation of the GPL will be considered copyright infringement > no matter how you might like to natter on about contracts and > flavors of conditions. How come that judge Saris did NOT consider alleged violation of the GPL to b

Re: the GPL is a license not a contract ..

Rjack wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: Violation of the GPL will be considered copyright infringement no matter how you might like to natter on about contracts and flavors of conditions. GNUtians never lose -- they just move the goalposts. The position of the FSF has never wavered. Tha

Re: the GPL is a license not a contract ..

Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > > Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > [...] > >> All sounds rather parochial to me. There are a great deal more than > >> merely fifty different systems of law under which the GPL operates. > > > Yeah, such as > > Er, this one

Re: the GPL is a license not a contract ..

Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: So what is your point? Violation of the GPL will be considered copyright infringement no matter how you might like to natter on about contracts and flavors of conditions. GNUtians never lose -- they just move the goalposts. Sincerely, Rjack :) __

Re: the GPL is a license not a contract ..

Rjack wrote: So what is your point? Violation of the GPL will be considered copyright infringement no matter how you might like to natter on about contracts and flavors of conditions. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://l

Re: the GPL is a license not a contract ..

In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [...] >> All sounds rather parochial to me. There are a great deal more than >> merely fifty different systems of law under which the GPL operates. > Yeah, such as Er, this one for example: http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg

Re: the GPL is a license not a contract ..

Alan Mackenzie wrote: [...] > All sounds rather parochial to me. There are a great deal more than > merely fifty different systems of law under which the GPL operates. Yeah, such as http://ifross.de/ -- Russische Föderation: Open Source Lizenzen als Schenkung? (26.01.2009) Von: ref. jur. S

Re: the GPL is a license not a contract ..

amicus_curious wrote: Microsoft's anti-GPL offensive this summer has sparked renewed speculation about whether the GPL is ``enforceable.'' This particular example of ``FUD'' (fear, uncertainty and doubt) is always a little amusing to me. "I'm the only lawyer on earth who can say this, I sup

Re: the GPL is a license not a contract ..

In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack wrote: > Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack wrote: >>> Doug Mentohl wrote: Rjack wrote: >>> For the past seventy years no federal court has ever ruled a >>> copyright license to be anything other than a contract. >> Who cares? One's got 7 lette

Doogie, go to doctor and take mad Eben with you.. (was: Re: the GPL is a license not a contract ..)

Did you follow SCO v. IBM, Doogie? "SCO's GPL violations entitle IBM to at least nominal damages on the Sixth Counterclaim for breach of the GPL. See Bair v. Axiom Design LLC 20 P.3d 388, 392 (Utah 2001) (explaining that it is "well settled" that nominal damages are recoverable upon breach of cont

Re: the GPL is a license not a contract ..

Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: For the past seventy years no federal court has ever ruled a copyright license to be anything other than a contract. And we see from this case

Re: the GPL is a license not a contract ..

Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack wrote: Doug Mentohl wrote: Rjack wrote: For the past seventy years no federal court has ever ruled a copyright license to be anything other than a contract. Who cares? One's got 7 letters, the other 8. It's the effect it has which is impo

Re: the GPL is a license not a contract ..

In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack wrote: > Doug Mentohl wrote: >> Rjack wrote: > For the past seventy years no federal court has ever ruled a > copyright license to be anything other than a contract. Who cares? One's got 7 letters, the other 8. It's the effect it has which is important, not the name y

Re: the GPL is a license not a contract ..

Rjack wrote: For the past seventy years no federal court has ever ruled a copyright license to be anything other than a contract. And we see from this case that even when there in

Re: the GPL is a license not a contract ..

Doug Mentohl wrote: Rjack wrote: The great debate on the software blogs about TomTom violating the GPL is sheer nonsense of the same caliber as Eben Moglen's nonsense about a copyright license not being a contract. 'The GPL only obliges you if you distribute software made from GPL'd code, a

Re: the GPL is a license not a contract ..

amicus_curious wrote: he also freely admits "I'm the only lawyer on earth who can > say this, I suppose..." which makes him a very small part of > all the lawyers and judges who might have their own say. You are not very good at understanding context, I suppose, or else you're deliberately tryi

Re: the GPL is a license not a contract ..

"Doug Mentohl" wrote in message news:gp60h2$is...@news.datemas.de... Rjack wrote: The great debate on the software blogs about TomTom violating the GPL is sheer nonsense of the same caliber as Eben Moglen's nonsense about a copyright license not being a contract. 'The GPL only obliges you

the GPL is a license not a contract ..

Rjack wrote: The great debate on the software blogs about TomTom violating the GPL is sheer nonsense of the same caliber as Eben Moglen's nonsense about a copyright license not being a contract. 'The GPL only obliges you if you distribute software made from GPL'd code, and only needs to be